371 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Drafts or audits a scientific paper's introduction: real-world motivation, evidence audit, theory-to-if-then funnel with a named estimand, bridges across experiments, and calibrated contributions. Use to write, frame, or critique an introduction.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use for "how does X work", code walkthroughs before changing something, and placement / ownership / layering questions ("where should this live", "which package owns this", "is this the right layer"). Explains subsystem architecture, runtime flow, onboarding mental models. Can critique architecture. Use why for motivation.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Perform a thorough, Incan-project-aware code review. Use when the user asks for a review, code critique, PR review, or says /review. Checks Rust anti-patterns, compiler pipeline completeness, error handling, test coverage, style conventions, and RFC compliance specific to the Incan compiler codebase.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Icarus Figures produces publication-grade figures for scientific papers — reproducible matplotlib/seaborn data figures and original TikZ method/framework/architecture figures, held to a four-axis quality bar (depth · elegance · unimpeachable · visible-gap) and exported as editable PDF+PNG+SVG with a runnable critique gate. Use this whenever a figure is destined for a paper, journal, conference submission, thesis, or report — making a plot/chart publication- or journal-ready, building a method/architecture/framework diagram or 技术路线图 (the hero figure a paper opens with), a schematic or workflow figure, or cleaning up a matplotlib/seaborn/TikZ figure that currently looks like a homework plot. Trigger even when the user never says "publication": if the figure goes into a written scientific document, this skill applies.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use ARIS to run Markdown-based agent skills for literature review, idea discovery, cross-model critique, experiment planning, and paper-writing support.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Simulate rigorous, fair peer review on a paper — in two modes. (A) Red-team YOUR OWN draft before submission to predict the reviews you'll get and get a fix list. (B) Review SOMEONE ELSE'S paper when you're an assigned reviewer or helping your advisor — produce a fair, venue-formatted, submission-ready review. Use whenever the user gives a paper (PDF, .tex, .md, arXiv link, or pasted text) and wants to predict reviews, find weaknesses before reviewers do, stress-test a submission, OR write a real review of another paper. Grounded in official NeurIPS/ICLR/ACL reviewer guidelines; every criticism pinned to a location, and checked against ACL's H1–H17 list of illegitimate critiques. 两种模式:审自己的稿(投稿前红队)/ 审别人的稿(当审稿人或帮导师),按会议官方标准评,绝不脑补、绝不发不正当批评。
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use for self-correcting implementation. Implements the reflexion loop: implement, validate, self-critique, retry (max 3 iterations).
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Scores and strengthens startup pitch decks (pre-seed through Series A) against 35 investor-grade criteria grounded in Sequoia, DocSend, YC, a16z, and Carta data. Use when the user has shared a pitch deck (PDF, PPTX, markdown, pasted slide text, or a link to one) and asks for a review, score, feedback, or critique. A full review takes about 15–25 minutes, 40 or more for a long investor deck, so for a general pitch question with no deck, answer briefly in chat and offer the review instead of starting it. When it runs, score with the rubric, never with deck advice from memory.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Evaluate an interface from a UX perspective, assessing hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring and actionable feedback. Use when the user wants an overall design or UX review—not when the main need is measurable accessibility/performance diagnosis, or final micro-detail polish.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Run technical quality checks across accessibility, performance, theming, responsive design, and anti-patterns. Generates a scored report with P0-P3 severity ratings and actionable plan. Use when the user wants measurable accessibility, performance, responsive, theming, or anti-pattern findings—not when they mainly want an overall UX critique or final visual/detail polish.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Step 2 of the PaperOrchestra pipeline (arXiv:2604.05018). Execute the visualization plan from outline.json — render plots and conceptual diagrams from experimental_log.md and idea.md, optionally refine via VLM critique loop, and produce context-aware captions. Runs in parallel with the literature-review-agent. TRIGGER when the orchestrator delegates Step 2 or when the user asks to "generate the figures for my paper" or "render the plots from this experiment log".
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Final quality pass fixing alignment, spacing, consistency, interaction states, and micro-details before shipping. Executes changes (unlike design-audit and design-critique which are report-only). Triggers on polish, finishing touches, final pass, something looks off, pre-launch, good to great.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Deep, iterative, multi-source research that explores a topic from multiple perspectives, detects contradictions, and produces a comprehensive vault note with fact-level citations and a confidence map. Use this skill whenever the user says /deep-research, "deep research X", "research X thoroughly", "investigate X deeply", "I need to really understand X", or wants research that goes beyond a quick web search. Also use when the user wants to understand a complex, contested, or multi-faceted topic, compare competing approaches with evidence, or build a comprehensive mental model they can trust for decisions. This is heavier than /research — it searches web, academic papers, Reddit, and the vault, then loops through exploration and critique rounds until the evidence base is solid. When in doubt between /research and /deep-research, prefer this one if the topic is complex, contested, or the user wants depth over speed.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Post-implementation self-review. Use AFTER finishing ANY code implementation or change — before declaring it done, committing, or opening a PR — to critique your own work: re-read the diff adversarially, confirm unit tests cover every branch/edge, kill duplication, follow clean-code/SOLID and the repo's own docs & invariants, decide if something should become documentation, update/prune memory, and strip outdated comments. Trigger it whenever you've just written or modified code and are about to wrap up, even if the user didn't explicitly ask for a review.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when the user needs to write, rewrite, review, or critique commercial copy meant to drive a reader toward action — landing pages, hero sections, headlines, email (cold outreach, nurture, promo, launch), CTAs, microcopy, product descriptions, value propositions, ads, or taglines. Also for copy audits, clarity checks, conversion reviews, or choosing a framework (AIDA, PAS, BAB, FAB, 4U's). Applies even when the user just says "write me an email" or "review this page." Not for channel/budget strategy (use channel-expert) or pricing structure (use pricing).
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when a non-designer needs to audit a UI, generate a design spec (spacing, type scale, color tokens, grids), or build brand foundations (logo systems, palette and type pairing, brand guidelines). Covers the visual layer, UX/perceptual critique, and brand identity. For implementing the design in code (React/HTML/CSS), use frontend-design.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when the user asks for a council, second opinions, or parallel investigation. Not for cross-examination of existing proposals: use cross-critique.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when a visual needs repeatable fixed-view rendering and independent rubric scoring. Not for free-form visual review or subjective critique.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
ES — Critica a fondo una idea, plan, pitch o proyecto entero sin validar ni adular: asume que va a fracasar y lo demuestra por ocho ángulos (premisas, mercado, competencia, viabilidad, números, ejecución, pre-mortem y punto ciego), investiga fracasos reales cuando hay herramientas, y entrega un veredicto franco con la lista priorizada de qué arreglar. Activar con /abogado-del-diablo, "hazme pedazos esto", "critica mi idea sin filtros", "dime por qué va a fallar", "destruye este plan", "segunda opinión brutal", "pre-mortem". EN — Harshly critiques an idea, plan, pitch, or whole project without validating; assumes it will fail and proves it across eight angles, then returns a blunt verdict with a prioritized fix list. Trigger on "devil's advocate", "red team this", "tear this apart", "why will this fail", "brutal second opinion", "pre-mortem".
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Designer's eye plan review — interactive, like CEO and Eng review. Rates each design dimension 0-10, explains what would make it a 10, then fixes the plan to get there. Works in plan mode. For live site visual audits, use /design-review. Use when asked to "review the design plan" or "design critique".
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Review or polish a product UI for accessibility, brand fidelity, hierarchy, rhythm, responsive behavior, themes, interaction states, and generic AI-template patterns. Use for visual audits, accessibility checks, UX polish, UI critique, or pre-ship design review. Do not use for generic code review, backend review, or API design.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when the user wants to design, redesign, shape, critique, audit, polish, clarify, distill, harden, optimize, adapt, animate, colorize, extract, or otherwise improve a frontend interface. Covers websites, landing pages, dashboards, product UI, app shells, components, forms, settings, onboarding, and empty states. Handles UX review, visual hierarchy, information architecture, cognitive load, accessibility, performance, responsive behavior, theming, anti-patterns, typography, fonts, spacing, layout, alignment, color, motion, micro-interactions, UX copy, error states, edge cases, i18n, and reusable design systems or tokens. Also use for bland designs that need to become bolder or more delightful, loud designs that should become quieter, live browser iteration on UI elements, or ambitious visual effects that should feel technically extraordinary. Not for backend-only or non-UI tasks.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
质量审查官 - 5 维度评审和 Anti-Slop 门控检测，确保品牌级设计质量
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Agent-native design engine that makes AI do more useful work: route the prompt, fork a template, weave IFQ ambient craft, verify the artifact, and only install export tooling when requested. One prompt -> shippable HTML, with optional MP4 / GIF / PPTX / PDF / SVG. Triggers include prototype, hi-fi mockup, slide deck, motion demo, infographic, dashboard, whitepaper, changelog, business card, social cover, brand from scratch, design critique, mp4/gif export, 60fps, keynote, PPTX, A-vs-B benchmark. Do not use for production web apps, SEO-critical sites, backend systems, or pure copy edits.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。